US embassy cable - 05PARIS206

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000206 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL, UNESCO, EUN, UN 
SUBJECT:  UNESCO CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION NEGOTIATIONS: 
UNESCO LAWYER DOESN'T BUY OCTOBER 2005 DEADLINE 
 
 
1. (SBU) Summary and Action Request.  UNESCO Senior Legal 
Officer John Donaldson called into question the October 2005 
goal for adoption of a Cultural Diversity Convention, noting 
that UNESCO rules and past practice are consistent with a 
four-year timetable, not the current two-year schedule.  He 
also said that the scope of the UNESCO Director-General's 
report may vary somewhat in scope from the October 2003 
UNESCO General Conference Resolution that began the process 
of developing a Cultural Diversity Convention. 
 
Post seeks Department guidance in evaluating Donaldson's 
reasoning concerning the October 2005 goal.  See 
paragraphs11-12. 
 
End Summary and Action Request. 
 
Conversation that Started on Scope Turns to Timing 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
2.  (SBU) In the course of a 3 January telcon with poloff 
concerning the scope of the General Conference's Resolution 
setting into motion the negotiations for a Cultural 
Diversity Convention, Senior UNESCO Legal Officer John 
Donaldson turned the conversation to the normal timetable 
for UNESCO Conventions.  (Note.  Reso. 32C/34 "Invites the 
Director General to submit a preliminary report.setting 
forth the situation to be regulated and the possible scope 
of regulation action proposed, accompanied by a preliminary 
draft of a convention on the protection of the diversity of 
cultural contents and artistic expressions."  End note.) 
 
3.  (SBU) Donaldson pointed out that the normal four-year 
process had gotten compressed into two years, which was 
simply not enough time to sort through the issues. 
Normally, he said, a resolution beginning the process of 
drafting a Convention would ask for a preliminary report 
setting forth various possibilities.  That preliminary 
report would be discussed at a General Convention, which 
would then make policy decisions and direct the preparation 
of a final report. 
 
4.  (SBU) Donaldson cited additional arguments to support 
his position. 
 
--UNESCO Rule E, which covered adoption of Conventions, 
required the Director General to distribute a "final 
report," not a "preliminary report," seven months prior to 
the General Conference.    Therefore, he noted, we are faced 
with the anomalous situation in which the DG is apparently 
gearing itself up for issuing a "final report" in March 
2005, even though the "preliminary report" mandated by the 
General Conference is not due until October 2005. 
 
-- Investigation of the wording of the resolutions 
concerning other UNESCO Conventions and the timetable of 
their adoption would bear the normal four-year timetable 
out, he said, noting that the materials are available on the 
UNESCO web site. 
 
5.   (SBU) In response to poloff's question about the 
timetable of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention, 
Donaldson said that he "thought" that the Underwater 
Cultural Convention took four years, even though there was a 
rush to complete negotiations at the end. 
 
6.  (SBU) Poloff, however, has been told that in fall of 
2003, the then-newly arrived UNESCO Chief Legal Officer, 
Abdulqawi Yusuf, opined in the context of the Underwater 
Heritage Convention that it was possible to develop and 
adopt a UNESCO Convention in one biennium, or two years. 
Relying on this opinion, poloff was told, the October 2003 
General Conference adopted the Underwater Cultural Heritage 
Convention.  (Comment.  The Underwater Cultural Heritage 
Convention is now viewed as an unmitigated failure in UNESCO 
circles.  Probably because the rush to complete negotiations 
left unresolved some important technical issues, it has been 
ratified by only a handful of states, with no further 
ratifications expected.  As top UNESCO culture official 
Mounir Bouchenaki told Ambassador Oliver in September 2004, 
the UNESCO Secretariat does not want the Cultural Diversity 
Convention to suffer a similar fate as the Underwater 
Cultural Heritage Convention "fiasco."  End Comment.) 
 
Conversation on Scope 
--------------------- 
 
7.  (SBU) In the earlier part of the telcon, poloff asked 
Donaldson about the scope of Reso. 32C/34.  Donaldson 
responded that this resolution, like other General 
Conference resolutions, set forth guidelines.  Some 
development or change would be permissible, but he noted 
that the Intergovernmental report should explain why it had 
varied from the mandate. 
 
8.  (SBU) Poloff asked Donaldson whether there were any 
limits to how far the draft Convention submitted by the 
Intergovernmental process could vary from the Reso. 32C/34. 
Donaldson explained that it could not be completely off- 
topic, that it must be related to the mandate. 
 
9.  (SBU) Poloff pointed out that the question of the Saudi 
Arabian Ambassador to Donaldson at a 16 December meeting had 
been about a significant policy issue -- whether the draft 
Convention submitted to the October 2005 General Conference 
must cover "cultural contents," as apparently anticipated in 
Reso. 32C/34, or may instead be limited to "cultural 
expressions." 
10.  (SBU) Donaldson took the point, but responded that 
recent General Conference resolutions, such as Reso. 32C/34, 
had become much more specific in recent years, in response 
to previous UNESCO Director Generals, who had sometimes 
submitted reports at wide variance with the General 
Conference resolutions, effectively substituting their own 
judgment for that of the General Conferences.  (Note. 
Donaldson hastened to add that this had not been a problem 
with the current Director General, however.  End note.)  In 
this case, Donaldson concluded, the variance in scope was 
less important, as it was something the members themselves 
appeared to want, and not something imposed by the DG. 
 
ACTION REQUEST. 
 
11.  (SBU) Even though the words of Reso. 32C/34 require 
only the submission of a "preliminary" report covering the 
"possible" scope of regulating action and a "draft" 
Convention, the general feeling in UNESCO corridors seems to 
be that the General Conference is required to decide on 
passing a Convention in October 2005.   If, as Donaldson 
intimates, this timetable is not consistent with UNESCO 
rules, then the current momentum to finish the job in 
October could be slowed considerably. 
 
12.  (SBU) Mission would therefore appreciate Washington's 
analysis and guidance. 
 
Oliver